COURT'S CANNOT CONCEAL THEIR OWN CORRUPTION

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

THE COURT CANNOT CONCEAL THEIR OWN CORRUPTION
BY DENYING JESHA MILLER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Jesha Miller has demanded his 1st amendment right to freedom of the press to expose government corruption in the Judicial Branch of government. The media has aided the Court's by violating Jesha Miller right to freedom of the press as he has demanded his right to freedom of the press to inform the American public of corruption in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court have refused to enforce the first amendment right to freedom of speech - press to continue concealment of their own Branch's corruption. This time however Jesha Miller points out that the Supreme Law of the land demands that government cannot prevent freedom of the press & the press cannot censor it to suppress this, this is an evil. Government cannot use their power to conceal corruption in the U.S. Supreme Court because the first amendment is intended to expose corruption to run a clean government. Congress must therefore acknowledge the checks & balances to uphold the constitution which they have an obligation to run a clean government. [ See: congresscomplywithchecksandbalances.blogspot.com. ] The powers of government are limited so they don't violate the law or the rights of " we the people ".
To execute this right there must be just criticism that Jesha Miller provides to the Court with irrefutable evidence of abuse of power by the U.S. Supreme Court refusing the Habeas Corpus which is a power denied government to secure the right to freedom. Imposed SLAVERY by the Indiana Courts & the U.S. Supreme Court. That's an ACT against the law committed by the U.S. Supreme Court & the 13th amendment which abolished slavery because a citizens freedom cannot be taken without being duly processed, a violation of the 14th amendment. [ See: apcalledtoexposecorruption.blogspot.com ] The motive for corruption is to COVER-UP the federal crime by Judge Davis Kiely pursuant to Title 18, sec. 243 which is the exclusion of jurors on account of race & deny 50 million dollars to Jesha Miller for the unconstitutional imposed SLAVERY. [ See: treasuryowesjeshamiller50mill.blogspot.com. ] The age old motive for corruption, money & power. This May 4, 2016, Magistrate Matthew P. Brookman must enforce the law as demanded by the Constitution because the 1st amendment states government cannot prevent it & the Court must enforce the law ORDERING the media to cease refusing the right to freedom of the press to Jesha Miller because the PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. The media & government cannot CONCEAL CRIME & CORRUPTION IN THEIR OWN BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT FROM " WE THE PEOPLE".

SEE DEMAND BELOW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

JESHA DONALDSON MILLER

Plaintiff

vs. 3:16 - cv - 00058 - RLY - MPB

TOM WHEELER, et al. Time sensitive / May 4, 2016

Defendant’s

1 ) Court must enforce right to freedom of Press May 4, 2016

2 ) Consent to magistrate trial by jury

Comes Now, Jesha Miller, demanding enforcement of first amendment right to freedom of speech - press this May 4, 2016. Plaintiff also gives consent to magistrate judge’s authority to trial by jury.

1 The plaintiff, Jesha Miller, proceeding pro-se reminds the Court your duty is to enforce the law of which in this case is guaranteed by the Supreme Law of the Land.

The plaintiff, Jesha Miller has informed the Court I have executed this right to be enforced by the Court this May 4, 2016 in compliance with first amendment right that ENABLES EVERY CITIZEN AT ANY TIME TO BRING THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY PERSON IN AUTHORITY TO THE BAR OF PUBLIC OPINION BY ANY JUST CRITICISM UPON THE CONDUCT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE PEOPLE HAVE CONFERRED UPON THEM.

2 Justice delayed is justice denied, the legal maxim meaning that if legal redress is available to a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. This is the basis to EXPEDITE the legal system, because it is unfair to the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope of resolution. The Court having the duty to enforce the law the 1st amendment enables every citizen this right at any time & I, Jesha Miller, have chosen May 4, 2016 for the District Court to enforce this right tomorrow, May 4, 2016 which is the duty of the court.

3 To delay justice is injustice, this is a VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights is a right that belongs justifiably affirmed by the Supreme Law of the land, the 1st amendment of the Constitution to freedom of speech - press that enables every citizen at any time to bring the government to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism in the conduct in the exercise of authority which the people have conferred upon them. The time for this right to be executed is May 4, 2016, the court have a duty to enforce.[ See; congresscomplywithchecksandbalances.blogspot.com is just criticism. ]

4 The just criticism is abuse of power by the U.S. Supreme in case No. 04-7377, Article I, sec. 9 whereas the Court denied the Habeas Corpus which is a power denied government to secure the right to freedom when held in violation of the Constitution & Laws of the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court commits dereliction of duty because it was addressed to former justices Sandra Day O’Connor & John Paul Stevens who have a duty when addressed by habeas corpus to checks the records & if true as alleged, to immediately release the citizen from the unconstitutional restraint. [ See: apcalledtoexposecorruption.blogspot.com / exhibit D - writ of certioari / also the motive was to deny a total of 50 million for the imposed slavery. See; Injunctive relief with reparations. 10 million for imprisonment & 40 million in punitive damages. ] When a man is brought by Habeas Corpus to the U.S. Supreme Court & upon review of it it appears to the Court HE WAS AGAINST LAW IMPRISONED & DETAINED HE SHALL NEVER BY AN ACT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, LEFT IN THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT, FOR THEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DOES AN ACT OF INJUSTICE IN IMPRISONING HIM, [ de nova ] , AGAINST THE LAW.

On the caption the U.S. Supreme Court is informed the proceeding failed the fundamental requirements of due process & the plaintiff is entitled to his immediate release.

Judge David Kiely is the principle in this case who denies the unalienable right ‘ all men are created equal”, which is guaranteed by the 6th amendment right to an impartial jury & the 14th amendment right to due process. [ see; page 250 he imposes an all white jury

& denies the 14th amendment right to due process and overrules the State & Federal Constitution. Taking a citizen’s freedom without being duly processed violates the 13th Amendment which abolished SLAVERY. ] SPECIFICALLY, I was held in violation of Constitutional Law # 250.2 ( 4 ) which provides; Every Black Man has a right under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution U.S.C.A., that in the selection of jurors to pass on his life. liberty, or property, there shall (meaning must) be no exclusion of his race & no discrimination against them because of their color. Virginia v. Rives 100 U.S. 313. ] [ See: pages 247, 248, 250 ]

Abuse of power, dereliction of duty, an act of injustice, & economic oppression are just criticism & of public concern by the U.S. Supreme Court corruption to EXECUTE THIS RIGHT MAY 4, 2016. Public has a right to know. Denial of the right to a fair trial under the 6th amendment & violating the 14th amendment right to due process by Judge David KIely in violation of the Bill of Rights is just cause to EXECUTE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS MAY 4, 2016 because the BILL OF RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS THAT GOVERNMENT MUST PROTECT & the public have a right to know.

5. It is prejudicial misconduct for the Court to continue concealment of a violation of the Bill of rights & not be expeditious in the administration of the business of the Court by refusing to execute the enforcement of the right to freedom of the press May 4, 2016 as I have demanded.

It is misconduct to refuse to perform the duty of the Court diligently & refusal of the DEMAND OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT STATING GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT SUCH FREE & GENERAL DISCUSSION OF A PUBLIC MATTER ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO PREPARE THE PEOPLE FOR AN INTELLIGENT EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS. The 1st amendment states that is an EVIL to be prevented for government to prevent this because the 1st amendment is intended to prevent such corruption by exposing it to the public. No Judge or Magistrate has the right to prevent this.

The court must therefore comply with the Constitution & enforce the right to freedom of the press because the media cannot prevent this by censoring. Therefore, you must enforce the law to make the press cease concealment of government abuse of power that denied the right to freedom. Only by enforcing the law do “ we the people “ have that right. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power.

The Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land clearly states government cannot prevent the right to freedom of the press & thus must enforce the law as the 1st amendment demands. What the plaintiff has done is presented irrefutable evidence of the government officials abuse of power, dereliction of duty, imposed slavery, & economic oppression by refusing to pay for the default on the 14th amendment right to due process so that these are not my opinion but facts.

II. The plaintiff gives consent to a trial by jury with a magistrate.

As Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970: "A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets."

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Annotation 10 - First Amendment

Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other Tests

Granted that the context of the controversy over freedom of expression at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment was almost exclusively limited to the problem of prior restraint, still the words speak of laws ''abridging'' freedom of speech and press and the modern adjudicatory disputes have been largely fought out over subsequent punishment. ''The mere exemption from previous restraints cannot be all that is secured by the constitutional provisions, inasmuch as of words to be uttered orally there can be no previous censorship, and the liberty of the press might be rendered a mockery and a delusion, and the phrase itself a byword, if, while every man was at liberty to publish what he pleased, the public authorities might nevertheless punish him for harmless publications. . . .

''[The purpose of the speech-press clauses] has evidently been to protect parties in the free publication of matters of public concern, to secure their right to a free discussion of public events and public measures, and to enable every citizen at any time to bring the government and any person in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon them. . . . The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens.'' 70 A rule of law permitting criminal or civil liability to be imposed upon those who speak or write on public issues and their superintendence would lead to ''self-censorship'' by all which would not be relieved by permitting a defense of truth. ''Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so . . . . The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.

DESPITE POPULAR MISUNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT VERY MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IT ALLOWS AN INDIVIDUAL TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES THROUGH PUBLICATION & DISSEMINATION. Dissemination - the act of spreading something, especially information widely.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Jesha Miller affirms the executing of my 1st amendment right to freedom of the press this May 4, 2016 to be enforced by the court upon the DEFENDANTS ORDERING TO CEASE REFUSING PUBLICATION & TV AIRING OF THE CONSTITUTION’S CHECKS & BALANCES by Jesha Miller because the 1st amendment states the press cannot censor & neither can the government prevent, as this is an EVIL. The court must therefore enforce the 1st amendment right to freedom of the press as it would otherwise be misconduct by refusing the demands of the Constitution & denying a guaranteed right. The Court & neither can the press use the first amendment to conceal government crime & corruption detrimental to my right which continues economic oppression & defies the original intent to expose government corruption in order to run a clean government.

About Me

JESHA MILLER, FIRST CITIZEN TO PETITION CONSTITUTIONS CHECKS & BALANCES DUE TO CORRUPTION IN THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. UNPRECEDENTED AS THIS INCLUDES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. GOVERNMENT OWES JESHA MILLER 50 MILLION DOLLARS FOR DEFAULT ON THE 14th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. CASE NO. 04-7377. HAS EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO FAILED TO PROCESS PETITION IN A TIMELY MANNER. SEE: jeshamillerpetitionsusattlorettalynch.blogspot.com. MOTIVE WAS TO EVADE THE CONSTITUTION CHECKS & BALANCES & CONTINUE ECONOMIC OPPRESSION BY NOT PAYING THE 50 MILLION DOLLARS OWED. WITH EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT & THE JUDICIAL BRANCH CONGRESS MUST ADDRESS THE CHECKS & BALANCES BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT UPHOLDS THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONSTITUTION BY STOPPING CORRUPTION, DERELICTION OF DUTY, ABUSE OF POWER, & IMPOSED SLAVERY BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. SEE: NOTICE- MEMBERS OF CONGRESS - CHECKS & BALANCES youtube.com/watch?v=piv8CQtJbDs.